> On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 14:47:03 -0800 (PST), Fish wrote:
>

>>e360insight v. Comcast, Denial Of Service Attacks May Establish New
>>Legal Precedent

>

>>See

>

>>http://www.fishlawfirm.com/blog/

>
> It may only be be a precedent if the judge is completely on drugs. Your
> analysis is without any basis in logic or technology.
>
> This article is a clear indicator that the author has no clue.

> My question is this: If you initiate a transaction asking someone else
> to do something for you - in this case, delivering an email using their
> systems - and the entity you initiate that transaction with doesn't
> answer quickly or correctly enough for you, how can that possibly
> constitute a 'denial of service attack'? Your options seem clear: wait,
> or stop asking. Under what circumstances can what amounts to essentially
> failing to answer the phone by the second ring constitute a 'denial of
> service attack', when you have no right or even reasonable expectation
> that the phone will be answered at all?
>

> Since they have no right to said service, and I have no obligation to
> provide it, there is no tort.
>
> I would truly love one of them to try and sue me. Frankly, I'd rather
> lose that case, since my next action would be to sue the judge and his
> bank for denying me access to his bank account.
>
> e360 has as novel approach here, but that doesn't mean it's a good one.

> I'm one of the NANAE Nine. The Eddie Marin lawsuit against us was specifically
> meant to cause financial harm. It was baseless, and it was filed by an idiot
> lawyer whose papers had so many procedural screwups that no sane judge would
> have ruled in his favor. Unfortunately, although our judge threw the case out,
> there were no sanctions at all against the attorney, no monetary damages (we
> had tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees), etc.
>
> That's the kind of thing that needs to be stopped.
>

> Edward A. Falk wrote:

>> In article <6spgp3l1te1laotm89j5vpoqvoq6l3u...@4ax.com>,
>> wrote:

>>> Interesting reading athttp://spamsuite.com

>

>> This came across SpamSuite just today: E360/Linhardt is suing
>> anti-spammers Mark Ferguson, Susan Wilson, and Kelly Chien for the
>> THIRD TIME. They voluntarily dismissed their case twice before, and
>> now they're doing it again.

>

>>http://www.spamsuite.com/node/356

>

>> I've figured out why America is so lawsuit-crazy -- it's because the
>> courts let people get away with harassing crap like this.

>
> Yes, they should have never allowed these papers to be filed, and
> there should be a way to put both him and the lawyer in jail for
> harassment over this.
> ...

> On 2008-01-26, Cameron L. Spitzer merde.greens.org> wrote:

> I'm one of the NANAE Nine. The Eddie Marin lawsuit against us was specifically
> meant to cause financial harm. It was baseless, and it was filed by an idiot
> lawyer whose papers had so many procedural screwups that no sane judge would
> have ruled in his favor. Unfortunately, although our judge threw the case out,
> there were no sanctions at all against the attorney, no monetary damages (we
> had tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees), etc.
>
> That's the kind of thing that needs to be stopped.

>That ignorant would-be spammer fighters have for many years proposed
>"tarpitting" or "teergrubing" with ultra-slow SMTP servers is relevant
>to the real world no more than any other crackpot theory based...

>

>> My ISP uses Giganews for usenet service, and I noticed a month or so ago
>> that a lot of crap that showed up on google wasn't showing up here. So,
>> is that Giganews, or someone at the ISP doing...